Provide an SD card slot

[Gavatastic]

Collect data on how it is used (temps/duration) to better understand why rLab solder stations have limited life

[robot-army]

Totally, this is part of measuring and recording current.

On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 8:45 AM, Gavatastic notifications@github.com wrote:

Collect data on how it is used (temps/duration) to better understand why rLab solder stations have limited life

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/robot-army/hotstick/issues/27.

[Remulos]

What sort of range would you want to store? Full lifecycle stats (i.e. 10,000 uses or something) might exceed basic micro controller memory.

[dhprice]

£2.50 or so for an ESP8266 WiFi serial interface ... you could store the data anywhere you like.

On 15/10/2015 12:06, Remulos wrote:

What sort of range would you want to store? Full lifecycle stats (i.e. 10,000 uses or something) might exceed basic micro controller memory.

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/robot-army/hotstick/issues/27#issuecomment-148353536.

[Remulos]

If we're putting wireless in this thing then we'll have to look at some extra compliance requirements so we should figure this one out soon.

[robot-army]

Oh man, intentional radiators :)

I'd much rather an SD card or something

On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 12:27 PM, Remulos notifications@github.com wrote:

If we're putting wireless in this thing then we'll have to look at some extra compliance requirements so we should figure this one out soon.

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/robot-army/hotstick/issues/27#issuecomment-148359385.

[robot-army]

but again, implementation is not for now. If we want to store stuff, we can make it a requirement and figure out how to implement it 'soon'.

On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 12:30 PM, Ryan . ry.white@gmail.com wrote:

Oh man, intentional radiators :)

I'd much rather an SD card or something

On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 12:27 PM, Remulos notifications@github.com wrote:

If we're putting wireless in this thing then we'll have to look at some extra compliance requirements so we should figure this one out soon.

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/robot-army/hotstick/issues/27#issuecomment-148359385 .

[Gavatastic]

Need not take to much memory if we're only storing and adjusting aggregate stats. The key thing would be to decide which one - no of usages, duty rate, length of low power periods ie are people just lazily leaving it on etc (not an expert on what would be best)

I like the idea of transmitting them for storage elsewhere, but think it's probably a lower priority requirement?

-----Original Message----- From: "Remulos" notifications@github.com Sent: ‎15/‎10/‎2015 12:27 To: "robot-army/hotstick" hotstick@noreply.github.com Cc: "Gavatastic" gavin9537@gmail.com Subject: Re: hotstickusage statistics (#27)

If we're putting wireless in this thing then we'll have to look at some extra compliance requirements so we should figure this one out soon. — Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.

[robot-army]

I really don't like the idea of wireless transmissions if we're going to try to get this thing past any real compliance or type approval testing.

I'm not saying that we definitely WILL, but designing that in will make it potentially a LOT more difficult if we do.

On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 12:33 PM, Gavatastic notifications@github.com wrote:

Need not take to much memory if we're only storing and adjusting aggregate stats. The key thing would be to decide which one - no of usages, duty rate, length of low power periods ie are people just lazily leaving it on etc (not an expert on what would be best)

I like the idea of transmitting them for storage elsewhere, but think it's probably a lower priority requirement?

-----Original Message----- From: "Remulos" notifications@github.com Sent: ‎15/‎10/‎2015 12:27 To: "robot-army/hotstick" hotstick@noreply.github.com Cc: "Gavatastic" gavin9537@gmail.com Subject: Re: hotstickusage statistics (#27)

If we're putting wireless in this thing then we'll have to look at some extra compliance requirements so we should figure this one out soon. — Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/robot-army/hotstick/issues/27#issuecomment-148360727.

[Remulos]

I have to agree, I like wireless in everything as much as the next guy but working for UL means I know how much of a complete pain in the arse it can be and I don't think it's worth it. SD card would work though.

[dhprice]

Remind me why do we need to get compliance approval for an open source design?

On 15/10/2015 12:44, Ryan wrote:

I really don't like the idea of wireless transmissions if we're going to try to get this thing past any real compliance or type approval testing.

I'm not saying that we definitely WILL, but designing that in will make it potentially a LOT more difficult if we do.

On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 12:33 PM, Gavatastic notifications@github.com wrote:

Need not take to much memory if we're only storing and adjusting aggregate stats. The key thing would be to decide which one - no of usages, duty rate, length of low power periods ie are people just lazily leaving it on etc (not an expert on what would be best)

I like the idea of transmitting them for storage elsewhere, but think it's probably a lower priority requirement?

-----Original Message----- From: "Remulos" notifications@github.com Sent: ‎15/‎10/‎2015 12:27 To: "robot-army/hotstick" hotstick@noreply.github.com Cc: "Gavatastic" gavin9537@gmail.com Subject: Re: hotstickusage statistics (#27)

If we're putting wireless in this thing then we'll have to look at some extra compliance requirements so we should figure this one out soon. — Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub

https://github.com/robot-army/hotstick/issues/27#issuecomment-148360727.

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/robot-army/hotstick/issues/27#issuecomment-148363099.

[Remulos]

If you intend to sell it you need compliance approval, regardless of the copyright or lack thereof. Licencing is not Regulation.

[robot-army]

Because I'd like a product that can be 'put in to service'.

In my opinion, one big thing that's missing from open-source hardware is standards compliance.

It can be found in software (eg. POSIX), why not hardware?

On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 2:00 PM, dhprice notifications@github.com wrote:

Remind me why do we need to get compliance approval for an open source design?

On 15/10/2015 12:44, Ryan wrote:

I really don't like the idea of wireless transmissions if we're going to try to get this thing past any real compliance or type approval testing.

I'm not saying that we definitely WILL, but designing that in will make it potentially a LOT more difficult if we do.

On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 12:33 PM, Gavatastic notifications@github.com wrote:

Need not take to much memory if we're only storing and adjusting aggregate stats. The key thing would be to decide which one - no of usages, duty rate, length of low power periods ie are people just lazily leaving it on etc (not an expert on what would be best)

I like the idea of transmitting them for storage elsewhere, but think it's probably a lower priority requirement?

-----Original Message----- From: "Remulos" notifications@github.com Sent: ‎15/‎10/‎2015 12:27 To: "robot-army/hotstick" hotstick@noreply.github.com Cc: "Gavatastic" gavin9537@gmail.com Subject: Re: hotstickusage statistics (#27)

If we're putting wireless in this thing then we'll have to look at some extra compliance requirements so we should figure this one out soon. — Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub

<https://github.com/robot-army/hotstick/issues/27#issuecomment-148360727 .

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub <https://github.com/robot-army/hotstick/issues/27#issuecomment-148363099 .

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/robot-army/hotstick/issues/27#issuecomment-148377272.

[dhprice]

I fully understand that aspect, it was not made clear that the goal is to build a sellable product.

On 15/10/2015 14:05, Remulos wrote:

If you intend to sell it you need compliance approval, regardless of the copyright or lack thereof. Licencing is not Regulation.

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/robot-army/hotstick/issues/27#issuecomment-148378396.

[robot-army]

To clarify "If you intend to sell it you need compliance approval" - Not only if you intend to sell it, but if you intend to put it in to service. I think that's the wording, there's not many exemptions.

On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 2:05 PM, Ryan . ry.white@gmail.com wrote:

Because I'd like a product that can be 'put in to service'.

In my opinion, one big thing that's missing from open-source hardware is standards compliance.

It can be found in software (eg. POSIX), why not hardware?

On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 2:00 PM, dhprice notifications@github.com wrote:

Remind me why do we need to get compliance approval for an open source design?

On 15/10/2015 12:44, Ryan wrote:

I really don't like the idea of wireless transmissions if we're going to try to get this thing past any real compliance or type approval testing.

I'm not saying that we definitely WILL, but designing that in will make it potentially a LOT more difficult if we do.

On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 12:33 PM, Gavatastic notifications@github.com wrote:

Need not take to much memory if we're only storing and adjusting aggregate stats. The key thing would be to decide which one - no of usages, duty rate, length of low power periods ie are people just lazily leaving it on etc (not an expert on what would be best)

I like the idea of transmitting them for storage elsewhere, but think it's probably a lower priority requirement?

-----Original Message----- From: "Remulos" notifications@github.com Sent: ‎15/‎10/‎2015 12:27 To: "robot-army/hotstick" hotstick@noreply.github.com Cc: "Gavatastic" gavin9537@gmail.com Subject: Re: hotstickusage statistics (#27)

If we're putting wireless in this thing then we'll have to look at some extra compliance requirements so we should figure this one out soon. — Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub

< https://github.com/robot-army/hotstick/issues/27#issuecomment-148360727>.

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub < https://github.com/robot-army/hotstick/issues/27#issuecomment-148363099>.

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/robot-army/hotstick/issues/27#issuecomment-148377272 .

[robot-army]

Here's a quote from (a biased) interpretation the machinery directive, not sure if it applies to the applicable directives for this product but...

"The Directive and the European guidance makes it very clear that Machinery built for own use must be CE marked"

http://www.cemarkingassociation.co.uk/machinery-built-for-own-use-ce-marking/

On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 2:06 PM, dhprice notifications@github.com wrote:

I fully understand that aspect, it was not made clear that the goal is to build a sellable product.

On 15/10/2015 14:05, Remulos wrote:

If you intend to sell it you need compliance approval, regardless of the copyright or lack thereof. Licencing is not Regulation.

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub <https://github.com/robot-army/hotstick/issues/27#issuecomment-148378396 .

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/robot-army/hotstick/issues/27#issuecomment-148378718.

[robot-army]

Can we move this thread of discussion over to the compliance requirement issue please?

On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 2:09 PM, Ryan . ry.white@gmail.com wrote:

Here's a quote from (a biased) interpretation the machinery directive, not sure if it applies to the applicable directives for this product but...

"The Directive and the European guidance makes it very clear that Machinery built for own use must be CE marked"

http://www.cemarkingassociation.co.uk/machinery-built-for-own-use-ce-marking/

On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 2:06 PM, dhprice notifications@github.com wrote:

I fully understand that aspect, it was not made clear that the goal is to build a sellable product.

On 15/10/2015 14:05, Remulos wrote:

If you intend to sell it you need compliance approval, regardless of the copyright or lack thereof. Licencing is not Regulation.

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub < https://github.com/robot-army/hotstick/issues/27#issuecomment-148378396>.

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/robot-army/hotstick/issues/27#issuecomment-148378718 .

[jeremypoulter]

There are versions of the ESP8266 modules that come pre-certified, but that being said I think maybe an SD card would be more appropriate for this task. On 15 Oct 2015 04:27, "Remulos" notifications@github.com wrote:

If we're putting wireless in this thing then we'll have to look at some extra compliance requirements so we should figure this one out soon.

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/robot-army/hotstick/issues/27#issuecomment-148359385.

[Remulos]

The end product would still need to be tested to the EMC standard EN 301 489-1

[dhprice]

V. nice to have.

[robot-army]

Hardware requirement is provide some removable data storage. Is this one accepted? I can't remember.

[jeremypoulter]

I think it was. This would also be really useful in the dev stage for debugging as well.

On 5 November 2015 at 14:25, Ryan White notifications@github.com wrote:

Hardware requirement is provide some removable data storage. Is this one accepted? I can't remember.

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/robot-army/hotstick/issues/27#issuecomment-154073184.

[robot-army]

OK